Every year the FTC brings hundreds of cases against individuals and companies for violating consumer protection and competition laws that the agency enforces. These cases can involve fraud, scams, identity theft, false advertising, privacy violations, anti-competitive behavior and more. The Legal Library has detailed information about cases we have brought in federal court or through our internal administrative process, called an adjudicative proceeding.
CellMark Biopharma, LLC & Lexium International LLC
China National Chemical Corporation, et al., In the Matter of
China National Chemical Corporation (ChemChina) and Swiss global agricultural company Syngenta AG agreed to divest three types of pesticides to settle FTC charges that their proposed merger would harm competition in the U.S. markets for three pesticides: (1) the herbicide paraquat, which is used to clear fields prior to the growing season; (2) the insecticide abamectin, which protects primarily citrus and tree nut crops by killing mites, psyllid, and leafminers; and (3) the fungicide chlorothalonil, which is used mainly to protect peanuts and potatoes. According to the complaint, Syngenta owns the branded version of each of the three products at issue, giving it significant market shares in the United States. ChemChina subsidiary ADAMA focuses on generic pesticides and is either the first- or second-largest generic supplier in the United States for each of these products. The complaint alleges that without the proposed divestiture, the merger would eliminate the direct competition that exists today between ChemChina generics subsidiary ADAMA and Syngenta’s branded products, increasing the likelihood that U.S. customers buying paraquat, abamectin, and chlorothalonil would be forced to pay higher prices or accept reduced service for these products. The Commission's order requires ChemChina to sell all rights and assets of ADAMA’s U.S. paraquat, abamectin and chlorothalonil crop protection businesses to California-based agrochemical company AMVAC.
BA Sports Nutrition (BodyArmor SuperDrink)
DaVita, RV Management and Renal Ventures
DaVita, Inc. agreed to divest its ownership interest in seven dialysis clinics – five in suburban and urban areas of New Jersey and two on the outskirts of Dallas, Texas – to proceed with its $358 million acquisition of competitor Renal Ventures Management, LLC. DaVita is the second-largest provider of outpatient dialysis services in the United States and Renal Ventures is the seventh-largest. DaVita will divest the seven clinics to PDA-GMF Holdco, LLC, a joint venture between Physicians Dialysis and GMF Capital LLC. Physicians Dialysis has been in business since 1990 and currently operates several outpatient dialysis clinics. According to the FTC's complaint, the acquisition would lead to significant anticompetitive effects in the New Jersey markets of Brick, Clifton, Somerville, Succasunna, and Trenton, and in the Dallas-area markets of Denton and Frisco. Currently, DaVita and Renal Ventures clinics compete directly with each other in these markets, and the merger would represent either a merger to monopoly or a reduction of competitors from three to two. Without that competition, the likely result would be reduced quality and higher prices for dialysis patients. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, DaVita, Inc. must obtain agreements from the medical director of each divested clinic to continue providing physician services after it transfers ownership to PDA-GMF Holdco; obtain consent from the relevant landlords to transfer leases for the facilities to the buyer; and provide the buyer an opportunity to interview and hire employees from the divested clinics. Also under the proposed settlement, DaVita is barred from contracting with the medical directors of the seven clinics for three years, and it must provide transition services for up to 24 months.
Laptop & Desktop Repair, LLC
Genesis Today, Pure Health, and Lindsey Duncan
American Guild of Organists, In the Matter of
The American Guild of Organists agreed to eliminate rules that restrict its members from competing for opportunities to perform to settle charges that the guild’s rules restrained competition and harmed consumers in violation of the FTC Act. The guild represents approximately 15,000 member organists and choral directors in 300 chapters in the US and abroad. Under the guild’s code of ethics, if a consumer wished to have someone other than an “incumbent musician” play at a venue for a wedding, funeral or other service, the consumer was required to pay both the incumbent and the consumer’s chosen musician. The code of ethics stated that “members are advised to protect themselves as incumbents” through contracts that secure fees even if they don’t perform. The guild also developed and publicized compensation schedules and formulas, and instructed its chapters and members to develop and use regionally applicable versions to determine charges for their services. The Commission's consent order requires the American Guild of Organists to stop restraining its members from soliciting work as musicians, and to stop issuing compensation schedules, guidance, or model contract provisions for members to use to determine their compensation. The guild must implement an antitrust compliance program, and is required under the order to stop recognizing chapters that fail to certify their compliance with the order’s provisions.